And ctwickman, I was talking about Milwaukee. I wasn't going to make a whole thread about it. I just wanted to see if anyone else was there. So I'd appreciate it if you pulled that stick out of your bum and let me be, thanks.

That wasn't very nice. I would just kindly APPRECIATE if some attacks against particular political affiliations were kept out of this thread. Do you want me to go on a rant on who I think sucks in the political world? Probably not. Sheesh, I never personally attacked you man...

An article in Tuesday's Journal Sentinel describes one of Milwaukee's lastest condo proposals, named 100 Seeboth, for the Walker's Point neighborhood. The proposal brings condo design in the city to a whole new and different level, having been designed by New York City's Tod Williams Billie Tsien & Associates (which recently won an award for the American Folk Art Museum in New York).

The site is a prime location at the bend in the Milwaukee River, south of Downtown; the building would act as a visual terminus for S. 1st Street. It would contain eight condo units, plus some offices, a restaurant, plus a RiverWalk/boat docks. The warehouse that currently sits on the site would be demolished to make way for the new building.

As for the architectural design, it is very "different" to say the least.

The rendering below looks north, showing the front and side facades, prominently located along W. Seeboth and S. 1st Streets.

The model pictured below looks south; the glassy facade overlooks the bend in the river.

This is an extemely poor design for an extrememly great site! The plain blank concrete walls simply make this building look very uninviting and very very urban-unfriendly because it turns its back to the street.

I am curious to see what the City has to say about this design. I doubt they'd go for it without some overhauls, and I can't say I'd blame them.

City panel backs snug site for second condo tower
By TOM DAYKIN (tdaykin@journalsentinel.com)

The developer of downtown condo high-rise Kilbourn Tower failed Tuesday in its attempt to delay city approval of a competing tower proposed for a neighboring site.

Fiduciary Real Estate Development Inc., which is building Kilbourn Tower at E. Kilbourn and N. Prospect avenues, asked a Common Council committee to delay for two to three weeks its approval of University Club Tower, which Mandel Group Inc. plans to develop just south of Kilbourn Tower.

Despite the implied threat of a possible lawsuit from Fiduciary, members of the Zoning, Neighborhoods and Development Committee sided with University Club Tower. The committee unanimously recommended approval of the University Club project to the full council, which is to vote on the issue Oct. 14.

Fiduciary is concerned that the 32-story University Club Tower, if built as presently designed, would create a sense of overcrowding with the 33-story Kilbourn Tower, said Craig Raddatz, Fiduciary development director.

To illustrate his point, Raddatz showed aldermen an illustration that depicted both buildings - standing side by side like giant redwood trees.

The towers, which would be among the tallest buildings downtown, would be 25 feet apart for most of their height - roughly the length of two Volkswagen New Beetles parked end to end.

"I truly believe when you see pictures of the two buildings together," Raddatz said, "we are dealing with a huge compatibility issue."

However, Barry Mandel, Mandel Group president, said the $75 million University Club Tower, once it rises above the third story, would be set back 20 feet from the property line it shares with the $52 million Kilbourn Tower - more than the city requires.

Mandel said city regulations require a setback of just five feet - which is Kilbourn Tower's setback from that same property line.

Mandel also said plans for a high-rise on the University Club site, which overlooks Lake Michigan, have been publicly known since 2000. That's when Department of City Development officials rejected a proposal to develop one high-rise that would have used both the club site and the Kilbourn Tower site, and instead called for two neighboring condo towers.

"If I lived in an area with vacant land, I'd know sooner or later it's going to get built," said Ald. Suzanne Breier, referring to the University Club site.

The committee vote came after nearly two hours of presentations by Mandel, Raddatz and city officials.

The dispute centers on two high-rise condos that would cater to the area's wealthiest residents.

Kilbourn Tower has so far sold more than half of its 74 planned units, which have an average price of $875,000. It is being financed through M&I Bank and Associated Bank, and it is expected to be completed by the spring of 2005.

University Club Tower's prospective buyers have reserved 35 of the tower's planned 52 units, which have an average price of $1.5 million. Mandel said he plans to soon begin converting those reservations into signed sales agreements in order for that tower to obtain financing.

Mandel said he hopes to begin construction on University Club Tower by April. He told committee members that city approval would help continue the project's momentum.

"We need to dispel the notions of some people who say our development is not consistent with city standards," Mandel said.

Raddatz agreed that Fiduciary's owners were long aware of plans for the University Club site. He also said the University Club Tower's design, by Chicago-based firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, has some "outstanding architectural features."

But Raddatz also said the tower's design, which received Plan Commission approval in September, needs more scrutiny. He said University Club Tower's size and design "must be compatible with adjacent buildings and add vitality to the neighborhood."

Fiduciary last week filed a legal notice with the city clerk's office. The notice said the development of University Club Tower, as currently planned, would hinder Fiduciary's ability to properly develop its building as outlined under the firm's agreement with the city.

Fiduciary's notice suggested moving the University Club Tower off Prospect Ave. to the western portion of the club's parking lot, along Marshall St.

That idea was flatly rejected by Mandel, who said it would "destroy" the tower's design concept. Mandel also said placing a high-rise on Marshall St., where it would be next to low-rise buildings, would amount to bad urban planning.

Raddatz said Fiduciary was open to other "solutions," although he didn't offer the committee any specific suggestions.

yeah, the two pictures are incredibly misleading with their backgrounds, as there is no real ability to determine what one might look like RIGHT next to the other.

I like both buildings--A WHOLE LOT--but if they take something away from each other (not just in residents' views or land values or whatever) architecturally, the whole might not add up to the sum of the [two] parts and that isn't good.

So basically, this is bad. I love the fact that Milwaukee's getting two highrises, but this whole situation smells really rotten to me. First off, plans for Kilbourn Tower have, to my knowledge, been around as long as plans for the UCT. On top of that, Kilbourn's designs have most definately been available for a longer period of time than UCT's - MUCH longer, actually. Taking that into consideration, does it strike anyone else as...um...slightly odd that UCT should plan for a large portion of their northern facade - the one facing Kilbourn Tower - should be a blank wall? Hmmmm...sounds like someone's playing dirty. Of course UCT is fine with the distance...their residents don't have to look at concrete.

And I think we have a winner for the "Most Asinine Comment of the Year": Mandel also said placing a high-rise on Marshall St., where it would be next to low-rise buildings, would amount to bad urban planning.

Bad urban planning? Um...you're sticking one big wall right next to another, genius. In a city like Milwaukee with aaaaaaall this open land, I think that could be considered bad planning as well.

Crap, the more I look at that, the more horrible that looks. SO dissapointing.

I really hope they can move UT back a bit. I fully support Kilbourn's initiative now after seeing just how incredible close together they are. It would be different if we were in NYC, but this is Milwaukee--it just plain looks odd that they are so close together when there is all that open air around them...

Oh well... I guess the arguing is still going though, right, and the placement of UT is not final yet?

Not photoshop, friends...no. That was done ever so tediously in MS Paint.

Anyway, I'm glad that you're all starting to see the problem with having these towers so close together. Right now, what I really want to see is a rendering of the side of UCT that will face KT. I want to see the placement of this blank section of wall. I want to see how bad it looks. Remember - the people are paying alomst a million bucks for their view--and a concrete wall is not worth a million dollars, by any means.

The placement of UCT is "final" in the eyes of the Dept. of City Develoment, the Zoning Board, and its developers.

Unless the Common Council disapproves during the final round of approvals, or if KT can convince UCT to move, or KT can convince the City to convince UCT to move, or if by some reason the issue goes to court and a judge rules that UCT be moved, it will be built where it's proposed.

To be accurate, Univeristy Club Tower doesn't have an entierly blank wall facing Kilbourn Tower. Each unit will have some windows facing north, toward KT, but a majority of the wall is blank.

As far as the UCT developers "wanting" their tower so close to KT--they don't necessarily "want" it to be that close, that's just the way the building is configured. It is a very narrow site, so there's not much room to keep UCT (as it's designed) by widening the space between the two towers.

The space could be widened if UCT was narrower, but that would require redesigning the entire building (for at least the third or fourth time). That option is bad for developers, because it means they have already have a good portion of the current design reserved with prospective buyers. A redesign means they lose out on money and time they've already put into the project, plus they have to spend more to start from scratch. Of course, building a narrower building may mean UCT will have to lose some units, which means the developers would lose out on all the money those dropped units would give them, and the building may end up being uneconomical for them to even construct anymore.

The solution isn't always as easy as "move your building to the back of the site," or "trim a little off the sides so there's more space between the two buildings."